ITT Why do Americans feel so much fear/hatred for socialism when it's an accepted political culture in Europe and in most other democracies around the world? Has this something to do with the cold war or is it older than that?
And offcourse I'm talking about socialdemocracy, not communist dictatorship or anarcho-socialism.

It is mostly conservatives, not the majority of Americans, and it isn't hatred for socialism more than a hatred of the poor. None of these conservatives bleed out of their crevices when the government of the people uses money collected by the people to build roads, or even surveillance drones (and they claim to be the Liberty guys). They don't want to be like Europe, because Europe is in some important regards better than in America. They are better in areas regarding social progression, which is the bane of a conservatives existence.

I don't support government involvement in infrastructure, and I'm a conservative. Drones are for military purposes, and although I believe we spend too much on our military, the government has the right to tax it's citizens to fund protection. Police Department is the same thing. The Fire Department might be pushing it a bit, but I'm willing to shovel tax dollars into it.

A socialist democracy turns into simply voting away the rights of the minority. 51% of the population doesn't like the Rich? 100% CORPORATE INCOME TAX INCOMING! 51% of the population doesn't like black people? SLAVERY OPEN SEASON AGAIN!

The biggest fallacy of Socialism is that it helps the poor, when in reality it is simply giving the poor what they want, not what they need. The long term effects hurt everybody, especially the poor. What defines poor anyways? To the person living off of welfare, the person working their ass off making $50,000 per year is rich. Does that mean that they should have a 50% income tax to pay for their less fortunate brother? Or should that brother be allowed to find a job and become a productive citizen rather than leech off of the hard working while being bogged down by the economic deprivation that is the result of Socialist policy?

Yup, the poor are leeches. You definitely have no vitriol for the poor.

The point is that it is socialist when government collects taxes to spend on the military. So don't object to welfare on the basis of 'its socialism'. If you don't like welfare because of its economic impact, I will disagree with you. But I can respect that you aren't ignorant and taking part in that severe cognitive dissonance basically because you insist on excluding the poor.

The poor are leeches? That's you speaking. Typical strawman argument. I object against Socialism on the basis that it slows the market down, lowers the average standard of living, and the fact that it is immoral to steal wealth, even if you vote for it. I'm OK with military spending because without a military we would collapse to outside powers. It's necessary to protect our Life Liberty and Property. Welfare programs are simply theft. There is no moral reasoning for welfare, it's completely political. Did you even read what I said or did you just pick out one phrase in my whole paragraph?

It was you who said " Or should that brother be allowed to find a job and become a productive citizen rather than leech off of the hard working while being bogged down by the economic deprivation that is the result of Socialist policy?"

And you very clearly do not object to socialism because you are okay with military spending. Just that alone proves that your arguments against welfare are not on the basis of any disdain for socialism. You are instead arbitrarily picking and choosing what can and cannot be spent by government with your approval. Im not saying that you have to be fine with any spending of the government, but don't say you hate socialism when it is used as a tool to help people that you either don't like or do not want assisted. HAVE your reasons and arguments against welfare INDEPENDENT of its application being generally 'socialist'. If you don't you look like a social darwinist who really has it out for the impoverished.

Military spending is NECESSARY though. Without it we would all be indoctrinated by an outside military force the instant they decided to bat a eye towards us. So you're saying the government should be in charge of all or nothing? That's retarded and not even worth spending the time explaining how poor of an argument that is. You're using fallacies to try and argue. I hope you understand that.

I already gave my arguments against social welfare, you're ignoring them. I said it doesn't help, it hurts. You said "HURR YOU'RE CALLING POOR PEOPLE LEECHES" because either you can't counter my argument, or you just want to be an ass.

And I never said the poor are leeches anyways. I said the poor who live off of welfare doing nothing productive for society are leeches, because that's what they are. Would it be nice to help them out? Yes. Is it our duty? No. They are not morally obligated to forcefully take property from another person. That's why charity organizations exist. And if they want more than minimal to no help, they need to work for it. You don't have the right to somebody else's property (money, food, clothes, etc.) for simply living. And there are plenty of jobs out there that aren't very difficult to get here in America, you just make more off of welfare/social security than actually taking a job.

And if you want to define Socialism as defense and law enforcement, so be it, I'm all for it then. I'm talking about universal Socialism that I object to. Where the government now controls the economy and society, not just defense.

You seem to think if one instance is OK, then all is OK. So by your logic if its OK to kill somebody as a last option in self defense, it's OK to murder a whole bus full of children. It's horrible logic and makes for a horrible argument.

Im not having that fucking argument with you about the legitimacy of certain government functions and welfare to be specific. My point is and always was that those who argue against welfare on the basis of 'its socialism' are in fact cunts. You have ignored my point. I would not approve of government funded handjobs, but not on the basis of my disdain for it being a function of socialism. You are trying to transform this into a welfare argument.

And its not that I'm not open minded to social programs like defense and such, because those things are necessary. Things like Welfare, Healthcare, Keynesianism, aren't necessary, and hurt more than they help.

But that's what this is! I'm trying to argue against the facets OF socialism. Social Welfare is one of those things. I'm trying to explain why I don't like Socialism, because simply saying that I feel that it hampers productivity, lowers the average standard of living, creates class warfare, promotes corporate buy-ins to government, promotes powerful government, and all in all hurts everybody in the end, isn't enough for you apparently.

No, that is not what this is. You are arguing against welfare, a program that is socialist. I am saying that attacking this program for being socialist makes you a dick, if you also happen to approve of military spending and public roads. If you attack this program for other legitimate reasons pertaining to its economic effect and moral inconsistencies, then that is not the same thing.

When I think of Socialism, I think of large government involvement. The in-between of Capitalism and Communism. When I think of small government involvement, like defense and law enforcement, I think of Minarchism, not Socialism.

When I think of socialism, I think of the people pooling together resources for the sake of providing for the necessities or more broadly to provide for things that the public wants money spent on. Those 'necessary government function' lines you like to draw are socialist, the type of governance that can be described as is socialism. When you say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.". One of those statements would mike a 'Minarchist' look like a dickhead, because they are changing the fundamentals of acceptable governance based on the subject matter.

In Capitalism wealth is spread to those who deserve it. In socialism you get a misallocation of resources and a lazy population that feels entitled to just about everything. When I say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on those that aren't contributing a damn thing to the collective" I mean exactly that. And subject matter matters. There's a difference between duty and right, and need and want. If you want something, its your duty to work for it. Otherwise nobody gets that thing you want, because nobody's making it. Unless you force them to make it, but that's slavery.

Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.

Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".

But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.

There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.

But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.

Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.

Let me step in here. To understand this sort of reasoning, think of taxes as a necessary evil.
Taxes are basically the government taking a portion of your money and using it in ways you have no control over. If you refuse to pay taxes, you can be fined or incarcerated. Some hardcore libertarians or anarchists compare taxation to extortion by the Mafia - you are coerced into paying the government money for services you did not explicitly request. Therefore taxes violate property rights and restrict economic freedom.

Minarchists and libertarians, however, are willing to make an exception by arguing that if it were not for some absolutely essential tax-funded government services, social order could not exist and individual rights would not be protected. Typically these exceptions include defense from external threats (military spending), law enforcement/criminal justice to protect people's lives and rights, infrastructure, and civil justice (mediating disputes).

These are typically considered essential functions - though there's some disagreement even here (Yardie excludes infrastructure) - and they benefit everyone in society, including the poor.

Because taxes are evil, however, they should be avoided whenever possible. From this standpoint, welfare spending is unethical because it takes money from the many and redistributes it to benefit the few, without the explicit consent of the taxpayers who provide that money.

The three things you listed are basic functions of any government - defense, infrastructure, and law enforcement. These are things that even many libertarians will agree are justified uses of tax dollars.
Conservatives and libertarians want to minimize government power as well as taxes, mainly because they feel that a) such things are detrimental to individual freedom and b) the government does many things less efficiently and more expensively than the private sector.

Many conservatives believe strongly in the ability of the free market to drive progress and improve quality of life, and are highly suspicious of a government monopoly on any industry.

As someone with a similar ideology (though I'm not an idealist), I can assure you that I do not hate the poor.

If you believe sincerely that welfare is a bad program because it is detrimental to the economy and actually makes things worse in the end, that is fine. I will disagree with you, but it would be with respect.

Rejecting welfare on the grounds of 'its socialism' while being fine with socialism when it builds you roads, protects you from other countries, or just fires, is clearly awful. One who does so is fine with money being spent on bullshit that will hurt people in the end, but do Not want their money to help those who are truly in need of a leg up and clearly have anti-altruistic tendencies and it is a sign of picking and choosing what government may do for the sake of excluding the poor and needy.

Bottom line, if you against helping poor people with tax dollars, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining by objecting to it on the grounds of socialism.

"while being fine with socialism when it builds you roads, protects you from other countries, or just fires,"

Sorry, but government services are not "socialism." And contrary to what a lot of people believe, welfare isn't necessarily socialism either. It doesn't automatically make a country socialist, nor does a socialist country necessarily have to involve welfare. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and directs the economy.

I never understood why many people have this idea of conservatives, business owners, rich people in general, hating the poor and trying to actively work against them considering the workforce is their greatest asset. They need them and the fact is for most businesses, the better the lower income families are doing, the better it is for them.

I'm still not seeing how that has anything to do with "hatred of the poor" if you are against programs for specific reasons having nothing to do with hating a specific group.

You can be against welfare when it isn't applied properly or maintained correctly. You can also be against the amount being sectioned to a specific program due to the state a country is in when the amount can be seen as an excess.

"You can be against welfare when it isn't applied properly or maintained correctly."

No, you can't. You can however be for reforming welfare to fix its application process, and for the purpose of maintenance. But when you are against welfare for its application, it is clearly not an ideological disagreement against the concept of welfare.

You can be against welfare, and not want a government supported program to help someone simply because they are out of work, you can have a sink or swim mentality. However, you can also see how integrated it has become in todays society and recognize its flaws and explain how they can be fixed. You can still not like welfare but would still prefer a forceful version instead of the one we have now.

At first you were talking about not wanting welfare at all, now you are talking about welfare reform. You are clearly back-pedaling. What you want here is the best of both worlds. I said that those who have no problem spending on roads and drones, who suddenly get uppity when that money is going towards making people not starve clearly have a cognitive dissonance that stems from simply not wanting to use their socialism to help poor people. Now you say that you don't want it, but in the meantime you would like to see it gutted to better fit your sink or swim stance.

>Not wanting welfare is not being against the poor.
>Someone can not like welfare because of very legitimate economical reasons.
>They can however see that in the state the country is in, it's necessary but you would prefer a reformed version of it that weans people off of it quicker.
>While supporting the reformed version, this may only be a lesser of 2 evils for you, when in reality you don't support welfare at all.

You can be against welfare and not be against the poor, I easily admit that. But when you suddenly hate the 'socialism' in welfare because its so Unfair you come off looking like an out of touch dickhead with simple disdain for the impoverished.

And America is heading towards socialism anyways so I have no idea what you're talking about.

We haven't even been a remotely Free Market Capitalist nation since Hoover took office and made that god awful Glass-Steagall Act and added a bunch of work relief/corporate welfare programs before FDR expanded on them. Personally I would rather just go straight to Communism instead. Socialism is even less productive and even less efficient than Communism in my opinion.

To be honest America will go through a phase of psuedo-facism, your civil liberties and rights are already being curbed but people are not aware enough nor care enough to unite to defend said rights, America has always been a place of "I look out for myself my family and nothing else" your looking at creeping fascism here.

I see what you're saying, but I doubt our military and population are radical-nationalist enough for Fascism to happen. If the Government were to tell our troops to attack the citizens, I doubt it would happen because the reason they are in the military is for the people, or what they're led to believe for the most part anyways. In their minds they fight to protect and serve.